RE: DC/UID

["Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>]

Kurt,

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> I'm willing to consider both 'dc' and 'uid' as "core" as they
> are specifically mentioned in RFC 2253.  In the current
> DN draft, they are clearly MUSTs and hence an appropriate
> specification is necessary.

I have no objection to dc or uid being in the core.

> However, if we go the registry route, one could argue that
> 'dc' and 'uid' could safely be removed from the table and
> that incorporation of the attribute types (and matching rule)
> is unnecessary.

The matching rule at least, should be added to the core specification
since matching rules are not readily configurable like new attributes
and object classes.

> So, it may be best to table this discussion until consensus
> is reached on [models] and [dn].

I'll put caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch in the next revision of
the syntaxes draft anyway.

Regards,
Steven